[extropy-chat] Qualia Bet.

[The Avantguardian]

--- gts <gts_2000 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> I think it would make more sense to say the
> bacterium is a tiny bit  
> "aware," and reserve the word "consciousness" to
> mean something like  
> "awareness of one's awareness". Consciousness
> probably requires an  
> advanced nervous system.

That's fair. Bacteria are aware. What is suprising is
exactly how aware they are. New research is
discovering that there are complex networks of
response regulator genes in bacteria that allow them
to make surprisingly complex decisions in real time.
These genes allow them to sense a great number of
enviromental cues and react accordingly as if they had
brains. Please see this link to the results of a 2003
conference on bacterial neural networks that detail
their complex behavior.

http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v4/n1/full/embor702.html

> 
> Humans seem conscious, but not bacteria and probably
> not even much more  
> complex organisms like insects.

If you call consciousness "awareness of one's
awareness" then I suppose so. However keep in mind
that even simple creatures like bacteria and insects
are aware of the world in ways that we, without
technology, are not. For example there are bacteria
with built in compasses that can sense the magnetic
field of the earth and bees can see the UV spectrum.
Thus they are probably more aware then we give them
credit for. 
> 
> On a slightly different subject, you mentioned
> you're a biologist.  
> Eventually someone is going to use nanotechnology or
> genetic engineering,  
> or a combination of both, to build an "artificial"
> bacterium functionally  
> identical in every respect to a "real" bacterium,
> perhaps even with the  
> ability to replicate and even mutate (gasp).  Will
> that artificial  
> bacterium be "alive" in your opinion?

Perhaps. Please read the link above to get an
understanding of how technologically challenging it
will be to build an artificial bacterium that has
anywhere near the functionality of the real thing. If
the artificial bacterium is "aware" of its environment
in addition to being able to reproduce and mutate,
then yes it will be alive. Of course, even if it can't
immediately sense its environment but can eventually
evolve to do so by mutation and selection, then it may
still qualify.
 
> I would answer yes. The bacterium is not artificial
> -- the definition of  
> life is artificial. The entire world is alive, or
> dead, whichever word you  
> prefer.  Personally I'm strongly biased toward the
> former. :)
> 
> Is this consistent with your idea of pan-vitalism as
> the source of what we  
> normally mean by biological life? If so then we may
> be talking about the  
> same thing.

     Yes. Because evolution does a beautiful job
explaining the diversity of life yet can do little
more than hand waving when it comes to explaining
where the very first life came from. Yes, I suppose
that sheer coincidence operating over billions of
years, might have allowed a self-replicating RNA
molecule to come into being, but the world is a harsh
place. The chances of that unique hypothesized
sequence of RNA remaining stable enough replicate in
sufficient numbers to give natural selection enough
time to shape into all the variety of life we have is
unlikely. Keep in mind that natural selection operates
largely through negative feed-back mechanism, that is
it erases the non-fit and thereby allows the fit to
propagate. Because of this, you need a lot of whatever
is being selected for in order for natural selection
to operate. 

     Why would natural selection "go easy" on newly
sunthesized slip shod RNA molecule for long enough for
it to achieve a huge population before "tightening the
screws" so to speak to allow for natural selection? A
single molecular sequence or organism without peers
cannot evolve by natural selection, it can only live
or die. Only populations can evolve.
    Furthermore despite having the technology to
manipulate RNA for over 50 years, we have not been
able to duplicate or even guess at the sequence of
this magic self-replicating RNA that lies at the heart
of current biogenesis theories. I don't think any such
sequence will ever be found. The biological molecules
of life (DNA, RNA, proteins, sugars, and lipids)are
way too interdependent on one another for any one of
these molecules to take the title of "first born". It
really is like a molecular "chicken or egg" problem.
     Because of these inconsistencies in current
biogenesis theories, as well as anthropic arguments in
physics, I feel the only explanation that is
consistent with all we know is pan- vitalism. That is
the hypothesis that at some point in the distant past,
the fine structure constant of the universe was
slightly different than it is today. Furthermore the
universe was smaller and contained far less entropy.
Thus the universe was more organized than it was today
and more inter-connected.

 I suppose it was just after the death of the first
generation hydrogen supergiant stars that synthesized
the first middle-weight atomic nuclei that are the
constituents of life (carbon, oxygen, nitrogen,
sulfur, and phosphorus) but before the heavy and
transition metal nuclei (iron, tin, lead, etc) were
created.

During this early period of low entropy, the universe
was warmer, wetter, and more organized. Thus the whole
universe at that time might have served as the
"primordial soup". Life might have popped into
existense everywhere spontaneously because the
thermodynamic conditions favored it in a way that it
does not today. In short, I think there was a period
in the history of the universe when the whole universe
was indeed alive ergo pan-vitalism. 

Then as time progressed, the universe expanded, the
fine structure constant changed, heavy nuclei and
eventually black holes formed, and the universe became
the cold inhospitable entropic place that it is today.
Whole swaths of the universe "died" and all that is
alive today are the remnants of the once living
universe, now strewn across the galaxies in little
nooks and crannies where the conditions are amicable
to it. This remnant life travels from world to world
by pan-spermia and perhaps for those organisms
fortunate enough to survive their own intelligence
technology.

I feel my hypothesis is superior to that of Watson's
RNA world in that it does not require that life charge
up a thermodynamic hill out of nothingness to overrun
the earth. Instead, the entire living universe slid
down a thermodynamic hill until the earth was one of
the few places where it was able to make a stand
against the void.
   

The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"If you fear death, you are not living right; if you don't want to live forever, you are not living well." - a sparrow outside my window.


		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Music Unlimited 
Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. 
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/